Message ID | 20250407154937.744466-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | i2c: core: Move client towards fwnode | expand |
Hi Andy, On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 06:44:56PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > The struct i2c_board_info has of_node and fwnode members. This is quite > confusing as they are of the same semantics and it's tend to have an issue > if user assigns both. Luckily there is only a single driver that does this > and fix is provided in the last patch. Nevertheless the series moves > the client handling code to use fwnode and deprecates the of_node member > in the respective documentation. > > Tomi tested the last patch, but since it was separate there is no tag (yet). Apart from the two minor commit message comments: Reviewed-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>
On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 02:43:40PM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 06:44:56PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > The struct i2c_board_info has of_node and fwnode members. This is quite > > confusing as they are of the same semantics and it's tend to have an issue > > if user assigns both. Luckily there is only a single driver that does this > > and fix is provided in the last patch. Nevertheless the series moves > > the client handling code to use fwnode and deprecates the of_node member > > in the respective documentation. > > > > Tomi tested the last patch, but since it was separate there is no tag (yet). > > Apart from the two minor commit message comments: > > Reviewed-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> Thank you for your review! Does it imply that media patch can go via I²C subsystem?
On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 05:48:53PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 02:43:40PM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 06:44:56PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > The struct i2c_board_info has of_node and fwnode members. This is quite > > > confusing as they are of the same semantics and it's tend to have an issue > > > if user assigns both. Luckily there is only a single driver that does this > > > and fix is provided in the last patch. Nevertheless the series moves > > > the client handling code to use fwnode and deprecates the of_node member > > > in the respective documentation. > > > > > > Tomi tested the last patch, but since it was separate there is no tag (yet). > > > > Apart from the two minor commit message comments: > > > > Reviewed-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> > > Thank you for your review! > Does it imply that media patch can go via I²C subsystem? Good point. Yes, and you can use this for the last patch: Acked-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> I wonder if Tomi would still be able to test (or at least ack) it. I see he has tested the rest but this one is missing hist Tested-by:.
On 08/04/2025 18:08, Sakari Ailus wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 05:48:53PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 02:43:40PM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 06:44:56PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>>> The struct i2c_board_info has of_node and fwnode members. This is quite >>>> confusing as they are of the same semantics and it's tend to have an issue >>>> if user assigns both. Luckily there is only a single driver that does this >>>> and fix is provided in the last patch. Nevertheless the series moves >>>> the client handling code to use fwnode and deprecates the of_node member >>>> in the respective documentation. >>>> >>>> Tomi tested the last patch, but since it was separate there is no tag (yet). >>> >>> Apart from the two minor commit message comments: >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> >> >> Thank you for your review! >> Does it imply that media patch can go via I²C subsystem? > > Good point. Yes, and you can use this for the last patch: > > Acked-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> > > I wonder if Tomi would still be able to test (or at least ack) it. I see he > has tested the rest but this one is missing hist Tested-by:. I think Andy just missed it, as it wasn't explicit. I did test the v2, with the 7th patch from this series on top (it was not included in v2). I haven't tested v3, but I don't think anything really has changed. Tomi